MHNS010043892022 Order below Exh.1 in Criminal Bail Application No. 1024/2022.
1.This is an application preferred by applicant Sau. Radhika Anil Patil for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.R. No. I184/2022 registered in Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.It is submitted by the accused that she has no concern with the crime and she has been involved without reason. Accused has no intention to cheat anybody. She has purchased the property from the person whose name is that of the complainant. Coaccused who has impersonated had shown the documents of the property and by keeping faith on him she has purchased the property. She has seen the Adhar Card and Pan Card and verified it and after that she has purchased the property. She has given three paper notice him three different Advocates to seek objection. However, she has not received any objection. There was no intention to cheat in fact she has been cheated as coaccused has time to time received money from her and misappropriated. Complainant has filed RTS appeal before Divisional Officer and obtained stay order.
Complainant has filed civil suit in which she has appeared. She has adopted all the legal remedies to verify the title of the property by inquiring with the neighbors which reflects her intention. She has made payment to the impersonated person by cash and cheque as well as withdrawn money from her husband’s account. Impersonated person has been arrested and investigation has been completed. The dispute is of civil nature. Accused has property at Nashik and Mumbai. Her family is
dependent upon her. She is ready to abide by all the terms and condition.
Hence, prayed that application is allowed.
3.Say was called of the investigating officer. He has objected this application on the count that, offence has been committed with suspected accused Nilesh Murtadank, Ajinkya Supe and Mukesh Gangurde who are not found yet. Wanted accused are yet to be arrested. If accused is released on bail she will threaten the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Hence, prayed that application be rejected.
4.Heard Ld. APP and Ld. Advocate for accused. It is submitted by the Advocate for the accused that the litigation is of civil nature. In fact accused was cheated as she has paid consideration amount for purchase of the plot. She has not sold the plot immediately or cheated anybody. There is change in circumstance as impersonated person has been arrested.
Investigation is of documentary nature. Hence, prayed that bail be granted as her family is dependent on her.
5.On the other hand Ld. APP has objected this application on the count that accused has transferred certain amount to wanted accused which has been stated by the impersonated person. There is a link between the accused and coaccused i.e. suspected accused Nilesh Murtadank, Ajinkya Supe and Mukesh Gangurde who are yet to be apprehended, hence, prayed that application be rejected.
Advocate for accused has relied upon on following case laws :
(1) Arwind Mohan Johri Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004EQ(SC)01090. I have perused the citation, however, the fact of the case are different as interim bail was granted to the accused on condition. As the accused has taken steps to pay the depositors the accused was released on bail, however, the said observation is not applicable to the present case.
(2) Mehmood Mohammad Sayeed Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001EQ(SC)0294. I have perused the citation, however, the fact of the case are different as bail was granted after chargesheet has been filed as trial will take time, however, the said observation is not applicable to the present case as chargesheet is not filed in the present case.
(3) Mohammad Chand Mulani Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 EQ(SC)0759. Perused the citation, however, the facts defer as it was observed that offence is punishable with three years and already accused was in jail for two years 9 months and on that count he was released, however, the said observation is not applicable to the present case
(4) Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadaw Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006EQ(SC)01145. Perused the citation. The offence levelled against the accused was under MOCCA and after considering Hon’ble Court held that there is a reasonable ground for believing that appellant is not guilty of the offence and in those circumstances bail was granted, however, the observations of said citation will not be applicable to the present case as offence levelled against accused is under section 420 and other section.
(5) Anwar Ali Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in 2008 EQ(SC)01410. Perused the citation. However, the facts defer that coaccused was released on bail and on those circumstances accused was released, however, in the present case the facts will not be applicable.
(6) Hema Mishra Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014 EQ(SC)0358. Perused the citation. The above case law is not be applicable to the present case as it was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. At the outset it is required to be mentioned that this is a second bail application preferred by the accused. Merely because impersonated person has been arrested cannot be considered as change of circumstances to consider the present application. All the aspects has been dealt in the earlier bail application preferred by the accused. In fact investigating officer has pointed out that certain amount has been transferred by the present accused to the wanted accused Ajinkya which reflect the involvement of the present accused in the offence.
Investigation is in progress. Coaccused are yet to be arrested. No new ground has been made out by the accused to consider the present application. Prima facie involvement of the accused is reflected. Hence, I am not inclined to released the accused at this stage and proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
Sd/xxx Nashik. (V.S.MalkalpatteReddy) Date : 23/08/2022. Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.